<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (8) TMI 455 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297917</link>
    <description>In a criminal revision against an order issuing process, the revisional court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is confined to the complaint and accompanying material before the trial court to test whether they prima facie disclose an offence and whether the process order was correct and proper. Persons who were neither accused nor parties before the trial court are not automatically necessary parties in such revision, because Section 401(2) protects only persons already within the proceeding from prejudice. The court also cannot widen the revision into an inquiry into allegations against non-parties or into who instigated the prosecution. Non-party respondents were therefore rightly deleted and the revision had to proceed on the existing record alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:16:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 455 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297917</link>
      <description>In a criminal revision against an order issuing process, the revisional court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is confined to the complaint and accompanying material before the trial court to test whether they prima facie disclose an offence and whether the process order was correct and proper. Persons who were neither accused nor parties before the trial court are not automatically necessary parties in such revision, because Section 401(2) protects only persons already within the proceeding from prejudice. The court also cannot widen the revision into an inquiry into allegations against non-parties or into who instigated the prosecution. Non-party respondents were therefore rightly deleted and the revision had to proceed on the existing record alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>